The W
Views: 101508224
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
21.12.14 1130
The W - Current Events & Politics - FISA Bill Passes the Senate (Page 2)
This thread has 6 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 4.77
Pages: Prev 1 2
(343 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (32 total)
RYDER FAKIN
Six Degrees of Me








Since: 21.2.02
From: ORLANDO

Since last post: 21 days
Last activity: 21 days
AIM:  
#21 Posted on | Instant Rating: 9.17
MR BOFFO:I don't understand why this case was posted in a thread about FISA.

Because it's one in the same - you don't need a government issued wire tap to feel / be guilty / paranoid. Anyone who thinks different is fooling themselves.

My thinking is it's down to a matter of finding the right lawyer to prove that you ain't

FLEA

(look at the guy in the 7-22-08 [22-7-08] test pattern pic. He's not an innocent)!!



Demonstrations are a drag. Besides, we're much too high
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 131 days
Last activity: 131 days
#22 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.92
    Originally posted by Mr. Boffo
    This was not a locked page. No one petitioned Facebook to make them available. The prosecuting attorney was told about them, he found them, and he made use of them.


How do you know these things?


    That makes it more like putting the photos in a photo album that you then leave open on the sidewalk in front of your house.


Here's how Facebook works:

Person A posts photos.
Person B is friends with Person A, so Person B can view Person A's photos.
Person C is not friends with Person A, so Person C cannot view Person A's photos.

They site recently introduced new kinds of privacy settings to alter this a little, but for the most part you can't view someone else's content without being on their friends list.

You might say anything on the Web is prone to being made public - and you're right. In the same sense that someone might break into my house, steal my private photo album from my closet and share THOSE photos. It doesn't make it right.

And again, all of this is ignoring the fact that he didn't post these photos himself. If a prosecutor breaks into a random house and takes a photo album and is told by a third party that one of the people pictured is a suspect in some crime that prosecutor is trying, should those photos be admissible in court?

Just because privacy CAN be breached doesn't mean people aren't entitled to it.

(edited by TheBucsFan on 22.7.08 1759)
Zeruel
Thirty Millionth Hit
Moderator








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Silver Spring in the Land of Mary.

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 17 hours
#23 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.05
    Originally posted by TheBucsFan

    Person A posts photos.
    Person B is friends with Person A, so Person B can view Person A's photos.
    Person C is not friends with Person A, so Person C cannot view Person A's photos.

    They site recently introduced new kinds of privacy settings to alter this a little, but for the most part you can't view someone else's content without being on their friends list.



Person D is not friends with person A, but is friends with person C and can see pics of person A if they are in photos with person B and person B is "tagged" in them.

It has happened with the friends of my friends. I can see pics of people whose profiles I can not see, but if they are in a photo of my friend who is tagged, I can see them in all their (dis)grace.



-- 2006 Time magazine Person of the Year --

"Who would want to rent a chicken?" -- The Bowler
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 131 days
Last activity: 131 days
#24 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.68
    Originally posted by Zeruel
      Originally posted by TheBucsFan

      Person A posts photos.
      Person B is friends with Person A, so Person B can view Person A's photos.
      Person C is not friends with Person A, so Person C cannot view Person A's photos.

      They site recently introduced new kinds of privacy settings to alter this a little, but for the most part you can't view someone else's content without being on their friends list.



    Person D is not friends with person A, but is friends with person C and can see pics of person A if they are in photos with person B and person B is "tagged" in them.

    It has happened with the friends of my friends. I can see pics of people whose profiles I can not see, but if they are in a photo of my friend who is tagged, I can see them in all their (dis)grace.


You are correct. So if I have a mutual friend with Person D, am I not entitled to privacy as a result?

If a friend of mine has photos of us together hanging on the wall in their house, is any friend of that person free to use that photo against me?

A person who is capable of viewing a photo doesn't automatically have the right to take, use or distribute that photo.

(edited by TheBucsFan on 22.7.08 1842)
Mr. Boffo
Scrapple








Since: 24.3.02
From: Oshkosh, WI

Since last post: 510 days
Last activity: 471 days
#25 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.30
So who are you made at exactly/whose to blame? Is it Facebook, is it the prosecuters, or is it the friend of yours who posted pictures online that everyone could see?
Lise
Mrs. Guru








Since: 11.12.01

Since last post: 478 days
Last activity: 20 days
#26 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.92
Ok, I'm not a law professional, blah blah... however I did work professionally as a videographer, and I've been looking into photograph copyright extensively for my job.

This is a really complex subject, and has multiple layers.

The copyright and therefore the right to distribute remains in control of the creator of the work (aka the photographer, videographer) or in some cases the company which employs them. So the person who took the photos has the right to distribute them.

A photographer or videographer has the right to capture the image of anyone in public or viewable from public space. In many states this right does NOT extend to capturing the person's voice without their consent (If I remember correctly wiretapping laws apply). This is the reason that many undercover videos have no audio and you are seeing them being viewed in a seperate room by the undercover videographer who is describing what is going on.

So as you can imagine this becomes very convoluted when you are talking about images captured on private property. If the owner of the property was the one taking pictures, the party goers have given implied consent to being photographed by attending the party. If the owner of the property hasn't asked there to be no photographs taken, the owner has given implied permission for photographs to be taken.

So, in my opinion the pictures were probably taken legally, with implied consent.

So the real question is did they end up in the prosecutor's hands legally? If the person who took the photographs pointed the lawyers to it, then yes. If someone else on the photographer's friends list saw the photographs, and downloaded them and then distributed them to the prosecutor, then I think there is a good case for having them thrown out, as there should be a reasonable expectation of privacy on a friends locked page of the person who took the photographs and distributed them in a restricted way.

The person in the photo only has control of commercial use of their likeness.

So, if I was the defense lawyer, the trick is to get the photographer to file a complaint, to get the photographs ruled as obtained illegally without their permission.

TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 131 days
Last activity: 131 days
#27 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.68
    Originally posted by Mr. Boffo
    So who are you made at exactly/whose to blame?



The prosecutor who gathered the photos, the court that deemed the photos admissible and, if it exists, the law that says such photos can be used against a person in court.

Also, from the brief synopsis in the story Flea linked to, I question the relevance these photos have to anything, and I don't see how they can not raise a million questions.

Does the fact that he was drinking on a night other than the night of the fatal accident somehow change the crime of which he was convicted? If the argument is that it shows he's not remorseful because he went out drinking after the accident, how can the date of the photo possibly be legally verified? Is this young man expected to never party with his friends again because he fucked up one night in his past? It's a stupid argument built on flimsy support.


    the friend of yours who posted pictures online that everyone could see?


There's no evidence presented in that story to suggest this is what happened in this case, so I fail to see its relevance.

(edited by TheBucsFan on 23.7.08 1140)
Mr. Boffo
Scrapple








Since: 24.3.02
From: Oshkosh, WI

Since last post: 510 days
Last activity: 471 days
#28 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.30
    Originally posted by TheBucsFan

    There's no evidence presented in that story to suggest this is what happened in this case, so I fail to see its relevance.

Wait, are you saying an enemy of his saw him at a party wearing an orange jumpsuit that said "Jail Bird" and took the picture and posted it to their Facebook in order to catch him?

I find it entirely more likely this idiot's idiot friends thought it was funny and posted it on Facebook for that reason.

Furthermore, are you saying that attending a party in an orange jumpsuit that says "Jail Bird" after you've been in a drunk driving case isn't a sign of lack of remorse?

If so, then I guess we are at an impasse.
Guru Zim
SQL Dejection
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: Bay City, OR

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 23 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#29 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.95
What was the theme of the party?

Did he purchase the costume before or after the incident?

Was it out of character for him to wear this outfit?

Does he have an ironic sense of humor?

What was he thinking at the time that he wore the outfit?

It seems to me you can't know the answer to any of these, but you sure can guess at the last one.




Sign up for Folding@Home and join our team. PM me for details.

Ignorance is bliss for you, hell for me.
Zeruel
Thirty Millionth Hit
Moderator








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Silver Spring in the Land of Mary.

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 17 hours
#30 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.05
I think the biggest question is:

"What will a jury think when they see the picture?"



-- 2006 Time magazine Person of the Year --

"Who would want to rent a chicken?" -- The Bowler
Lise
Mrs. Guru








Since: 11.12.01

Since last post: 478 days
Last activity: 20 days
#31 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.92
Whatever your personal feeling if this particular individual got his just desserts, even idiots deserve due process. It is possible that pictures were illegally used against him. It is also possible that they were legally used against him.

I personally want to make sure that if a legal precedent is set, that it maintains reasonable privacy even on the internet, and that there isn't a special law that covers that.

I personally feel that this kid made some really dumb choices. I do not know if 2 years in jail is a just punishment because I don't know the full circumstances. I also feel that his punishment was much harsher because of those pictures. Should he have been drinking? Well obviously not, he was underage at the time. I don't know the law in his state, but in all of the states I've lived in he would have already had his liscence revoked until 21 or 5 years whichever is greater from the arrest.

Honestly I can go both ways on this particular incident. I do know however that I will be sending this article to my 15 year old brother. I think this is a really good article to talk about underage drinking. Maybe the kid just didn't know his limitations and honestly thought he was fine to drive. His actions had reprocussions that not only on his life, but on another life and both families. I also will use it to talk about expectation of privacy, and that if you put a picture out there for the world to see (or send an email, or send a text or picture via phone) once you hit send or post, it's out of your control. I'm also going to show him how much potential employers can find just by googling your name, or name and location. Teenagers and young 20 somethings aren't exactly known for thinking things out ahead of time in general. This is one kind of mistake that can have long term and far reaching concequences.
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 131 days
Last activity: 131 days
#32 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.68
    Originally posted by Mr. Boffo
      Originally posted by TheBucsFan

      There's no evidence presented in that story to suggest this is what happened in this case, so I fail to see its relevance.

    Wait, are you saying an enemy of his saw him at a party wearing an orange jumpsuit that said "Jail Bird" and took the picture and posted it to their Facebook in order to catch him?

    I find it entirely more likely this idiot's idiot friends thought it was funny and posted it on Facebook for that reason.

    Furthermore, are you saying that attending a party in an orange jumpsuit that says "Jail Bird" after you've been in a drunk driving case isn't a sign of lack of remorse?

    If so, then I guess we are at an impasse.


No, I'm saying there's no evidence the photos were posted in a place "everyone can see."
Pages: Prev 1 2
Thread rated: 4.77
Pages: Prev 1 2
Thread ahead: John Edwards admits to affair
Next thread: Chicago Tribune Scientology Article...with a name familiar to the IWC?
Previous thread: For those interested in immigration reform
(343 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Actually (or at least in addition to that), the Administration has claimed that it has the legal power/right to do this under the Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF). Here's (uchicagolaw.typepad.com)
The W - Current Events & Politics - FISA Bill Passes the Senate (Page 2)Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.158 seconds.